Case law

Mireles v. State

276 P.3d 1088 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 30, 2012

Clearly, only the judge who issued the 2010 Protective Order had authority to decide its validity. … Thus, at least to the 2010 Protective Order, the record does not establish any surprise of its existence.

Liles v. State

702 P.2d 1025 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 13, 1985

Appellant contends that since his jury was composed only of those who qualified under Witherspoon v. … The Court's analysis in Ake clearly demonstrates that the holding was not intended as a triggering mechanism.

State ex rel. Pollution Control Coordinating Board v. Kerr-McGee Corp.

619 P.2d 858 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 4, 1980

. *864 Defendant Cushing objected to the admission of testimony of a qualified expert reference his opinion as to the cause of the fish dying. … Before this court will reverse a case for alleged error in giving instructions, it must clearly appear that the instruction complained of has caused a miscarriage of justice. 14 Although the trial court no doubt erred in

Hancock v. Mutual Trust Co.

24 Okla. 391 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 13, 1909

The Congress of the United States and the members of the different tribes clearly foresaw that the increasing pressure of white people surrounding these nations, crowding over and intermingling with them, rendered a further … continuance of their qualified tribal independence of the government of the United States not only impracticable and probably impossible of accomplishment, but also that the friction occasioned by an effort to continue it

Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Miller

486 P.2d 630 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 25, 1971

The plaintiff, with 25 years experience as a switchman, was qualified to testify as an expert witness under the facts presented that the method of shoving was the proper and safer procedure. … In the first place such instruction is not supported by any evidence because the evidence clearly shows that plaintiff did look for danger and did use ordinary care.

Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Parkhill Restaurants, Inc.

669 P.2d 265 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 5, 1983

They were kept in the same area of the establishment, although the bottles for the private parties were segregated from the balance of the stock. … Upon confiscation, the bottles were intermingled so that only those which were labeled were clearly identifiable.

Abshier v. State

72 O.B.A.J. 1819 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 24, 2001

Stuemky was no less qualified to testify about this than he was qualified to testify about his opinion based on his experience that only one or two persons out of 200 who had killed children had actually intended to do so … Even if this error had been preserved for appellate review, it would clearly have been harmless. Simpson v.

Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet

758 P.2d 813 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 17, 1988

Falstaff Brewing Corp., 21 in determining whether Loffland’s plan qualifies as being an unfunded employee benefit plan. … In summary, we conclude that benefits under STEP are not funded by any separate account with a clearly segregated res; nor is STEP a part and parcel of all employees’ compensation with Loffland; that is, STEP is not a basic

State Ex Rel. MacY v. BD. OF COM'RS

986 P.2d 1130 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 1, 1999

That result would clearly be contrary to the legislative intent. … Both parties were clearly entitled to gain district court access for resolution of their controversy by a judicial declaration of rights.

Mathews v. Sniggs

75 Okla. 108 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 1, 1919

Plaintiffs contend that the deed was given to. enable defendant Sniggs to qualify as a surety on the bond of Lorena Mathews. … The doctrine thus uniformly established in reference to the effect of the reform legislation upon primary rights and duties and causes of action is also as clearly settled in reference to its effect upon remedies and remedial

Republic National Life Insurance Co. v. Chilcoat

368 P.2d 821 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 24, 1961

While there is some repetition in both of the instructions complained of, we have held that, ordinarily, repetition in instructions, of itself, is not reversible error unless it clearly appears to have misled the jury. … If he was, he would not qualify for life insurance at all. But his blood pressure and his pulse and the fact that he used crutches, made him rather highly substandard. * * *. "Q.

Consolidated Pipe Line Co. v. British American Oil Co.

163 Okla. 171 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 11, 1933

The defendant, Consolidated Pipe Line Company, is also a foreign corporation, but has qualified to do business in the state of Oklahoma, maintaining its office at Tulsa, Okla. On the 10th day of December, 1923, one J. … The principle involved is clearly stated in 20 R. C.

Shelton v. Regalado

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 4, 2023

A claim is plausible if the facts alleged “raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” of the conduct necessary to establish plaintiff’s claim. Id. at 556; see also Ashcroft v. … While Shelton’s factual allegations in support of claim two are not well developed, he clearly asserts a “constitutional” tort arising from the operational act of providing food to a pretrial detainee housed in a county

STEVENS v. FOX

383 P.3d 269 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 11, 2016

We noted the framers of our Constitution clearly intended a separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Id. … This Court also determined Oklahoma’s extant jurisprudence clearly delimits the Court’s power over the Legislature, citing Jones v.

Fisher v. State

736 P.2d 1003 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 4, 1987

He said that the medication made him drowsy, unable to think clearly, and that he felt intoxicated. Dr. … The record does not support a finding that the alleged informant, F.J., provided evidence against the appellant for pay or for immunity from punishment.

Ex Parte Tomlinson

54 Okla. Crim. 367 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 19, 1933

Among those prohibitions is the one which makes private property immune against seizure or condemnation to' public use without compensation. … The local city’s requirement that motor cars stop at congested street intersections in obedience to certain established signals before proceeding across the line of traffic is a salutary regulation, and is not in conflict

Burks v. Walker

25 Okla. 353 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 14, 1909

That portion of the section reading “and such other courts, commissions or boards, inferior to the Supreme Court, as may be established by law” clearly contemplates and provides that a portion of the judicial power of the … resolution and submit the question whether such court should be established to the qualified voters of the city and two thirds of the votes cast thereon were in favor of the establishment of the court, was held not to be

STRIPLING v. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY

486 P.3d 21 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 16, 2020

Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence; 6. Arbitrary or capricious; 7. Procured by fraud; or 8. Missing findings of fact on issues essential to the decision. … which the issue could be reasonably resolved," and "[i]n cases before the Commission involving the testimony of expert witnesses, a factual finding is supported by substantial evidence when the evidence is offered by a qualified

Butler v. Rice

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 6, 2020

“[J]udges defending against § 1983 actions enjoy absolute immunity from damages liability for acts performed in their judicial capacities.” Supreme Court of Virginia v. … Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(a), the amended complaint must be clearly legible, and only one side of the paper may be used. The Court Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a form for filing an amended complaint.

Hembree v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.

176 Okla. 524 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 1, 1935

It is not an estate that can be the subject of barter and sale, but may be waived, abandoned, or renounced at will, without consideration, by parties who are legally qualified to waive such rights. … Clearly, this expression of the court states a correct principle of law.